Succession

[Richard Smith]

It's pretty pathetic that Richard thinks he can be judgmental about something that happened in England, where he most likely has never been. I'm sure there are members on this board from England or perhaps even Birmingham to set him straight about what really happened.

This one is particularly noteworthy for its hypocrisy.   Martin claims to live in "Europe" but has bombarded this forum with critical comments about the US and US politics.  But I'm being "judgmental" for commenting on one event that happened in England.  That is verboten to him.  Members of this "board" should set me straight.  Martin speaks for these people as well because he allegedly lives on the same continent?  Bizarre.

[Martin Weidmann]

This one is particularly noteworthy for its hypocrisy.   Martin claims to live in "Europe" but has bombarded this forum with critical comments about the US and US politics.  But I'm being "judgmental" for commenting on one event that happened in England.  That is verboten to him.  Members of this "board" should set me straight.  Martin speaks for these people as well because he allegedly lives on the same continent?  Bizarre.

Hey fool, I've been living alernately in the USA and Europe for more than 30 years now. That's the advantage of a dual nationality and that's what gives me a far better perspective about the differences between the two continents than you will ever have, living in your trailer.

You only need to read the off topic section of this board to find out who has really bombarded this forum with critical comments about the US and US politics and has been doing so forever, and it isn't me. I think you re a completely fanatical idiot, but I don't critize you for all the crap you say about the USA because, no matter how shortsighted and narrowminded it is, you have a right to say it. Just like I have the same right....right? 

You, on the other hand, who is constantly whining about free speech, has a problem with me pointing out the ugly side of America! Unlike you, I don't need to lie to expose what is going on with police killing innocent people. All it takes is posting a bunch of videos with bodycam footage as they can be found on You Tube.

But I'm being "judgmental" for commenting on one event that happened in England.

Yes, especially because you are lying about what actually happened in Birmingham.

You still don't care that in the US police frequently kills innocent people who are just walking on the sidewalk or have asked for help, but you get upset about a religious nutjob in England being arrested by unarmed police officer for violating a lawful order five times. Wanna see a hypocrite? Look in the mirror.

Let's ignore all the unjustified police killings, the mass shootings and all the school killings and complain about an English fanatic being arrested... Is that what you need to convince yourself that he US is still the home of the brave and the land of the free? How pitiful!

We had a great proud country that welcomed the oppressed and the poor and that stood for something until right wing fanatics like you f*cked it all up and blamed it on everybody except themselves.

[John Iacoletti]

Another steaming pile of “Richard Smith” BS. What “current affairs in Texas”? What “hate” of religion?

[Charles Collins]

This little tidbit is also from “The Death of a President” by William Manchester. This book enlightens by providing a lot of behind the scenes details that seem to only be possible because of Manchester’s relationships with the Kennedys and JFK’s close associates. Anyway, this snip is from the morning of 11/23/63 as Schlesinger drove McNamara home from the White House. And, I suppose, it should be related to the succession (as one of the results).


McNamara was a registered Republican. Schlesinger was a zealous Democrat, and despite his silence on this point his convictions about the campaign were far more partisan than the Secretary’s. He wondered whether Lyndon Johnson should be his party’s candidate in the coming election. Already he was looking ahead to the convention in Atlantic City. After leaving Dupont Circle he conferred with Chairman John Bailey, asking him whether it would be possible to deny the new President the nomination. John, according to his account, replied that “it might be technically feasible, but the result would be to lose the election for the Democrats.” Schlesinger suggested that the party was likely to lose anyway, that either Rockefeller or Nixon would win by carrying “the big industrial states.” He then added perceptively, “But I suppose that Johnson is astute enough to recognize this too, which means that he may be driven to an aggressive liberal program.” This judgment was reached on the thirty-sixth President’s first full day in office, before he had made a single move in any direction, and it came from a Democrat who was pondering the wisdom of forfeiting the election, “regardless of merits,” to beat him. Yet it would be hard to find a shrewder appraisal of the Johnsonian domestic program that would later emerge.


It is somewhat surprising to me that Schlesinger had that conversation with John Bailey. I think that the world would have been a much different place if JFK had not been assassinated on 11/22/63.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

This little tidbit is also from “The Death of a President” by William Manchester. This book enlightens by providing a lot of behind the scenes details that seem to only be possible because of Manchester’s relationships with the Kennedys and JFK’s close associates. Anyway, this snip is from the morning of 11/23/63 as Schlesinger drove McNamara home from the White House. And, I suppose, it should be related to the succession (as one of the results).


McNamara was a registered Republican. Schlesinger was a zealous Democrat, and despite his silence on this point his convictions about the campaign were far more partisan than the Secretary’s. He wondered whether Lyndon Johnson should be his party’s candidate in the coming election. Already he was looking ahead to the convention in Atlantic City. After leaving Dupont Circle he conferred with Chairman John Bailey, asking him whether it would be possible to deny the new President the nomination. John, according to his account, replied that “it might be technically feasible, but the result would be to lose the election for the Democrats.” Schlesinger suggested that the party was likely to lose anyway, that either Rockefeller or Nixon would win by carrying “the big industrial states.” He then added perceptively, “But I suppose that Johnson is astute enough to recognize this too, which means that he may be driven to an aggressive liberal program.” This judgment was reached on the thirty-sixth President’s first full day in office, before he had made a single move in any direction, and it came from a Democrat who was pondering the wisdom of forfeiting the election, “regardless of merits,” to beat him. Yet it would be hard to find a shrewder appraisal of the Johnsonian domestic program that would later emerge.


It is somewhat surprising to me that Schlesinger had that conversation with John Bailey. I think that the world would have been a much different place if JFK had not been assassinated on 11/22/63.

Caro, Dallek and other historians I've read say that LBJ only vaguely mentioned his "Great Society" programs during the campaign against Goldwater. And certainly nothing in detail about that enormous number of racial and poverty programs that were passed. In their accounts he essentially ran as a moderate and portrayed Goldwater as an extremist. I'll suggest that the very liberal and partisan Schlesinger would have recommended a liberal program for LBJ no matter what the situation was <g>.

Here's Dallek: "Democrats watching the rise of Goldwater's candidacy were gleeful. "It begins to look as though the Republicans are really going on a Kamikaze mission in November," ADA president John Roche wrote [LBJ press secretary] Billy Moyers in June."

"But taking nothing for granted, Johnson insisted on a tough, hard driving campaign. He saw "Goldwaterism" as the 'outgrowth of long public unrest with Big Government, Big Spending..and feeling that Washington doesn't understand our problems." He wanted to broaden the Democratic Party base by reaching out to independents and Republicans."

Ironic that he considered the public's "unrest" about Big Government and then, after being elected, passed the largest series of government programs since the New Deal if not ever.

As to Manchester: I think LBJ was right to be worried about the book, about how it would portray him. Manchester had to curry favor with the Kennedys, especially Jackie, in order to get access; without their contribution he has no book. So he's going to go easy on JFK at the possible expense of LBJ. And we all know about the conflicts between LBJ and RFK and the "Kennedy mafia". It apparently got much worse later but it was bad at the time of the assassination.

[Charles Collins]

Caro, Dallek and other historians I've read say that LBJ only vaguely mentioned his "Great Society" programs during the campaign against Goldwater. And certainly nothing in detail about that enormous number of racial and poverty programs that were passed. In their accounts he essentially ran as a moderate and portrayed Goldwater as an extremist. I'll suggest that the very liberal and partisan Schlesinger would have recommended a liberal program for LBJ no matter what the situation was <g>.

Here's Dallek: "Democrats watching the rise of Goldwater's candidacy were gleeful. "It begins to look as though the Republicans are really going on a Kamikaze mission in November," ADA president John Roche wrote [LBJ press secretary] Billy Moyers in June."

"But taking nothing for granted, Johnson insisted on a tough, hard driving campaign. He saw "Goldwaterism" as the 'outgrowth of long public unrest with Big Government, Big Spending..and feeling that Washington doesn't understand our problems." He wanted to broaden the Democratic Party base by reaching out to independents and Republicans."

Ironic that he considered the public's "unrest" about Big Government and then, after being elected, passed the largest series of government programs since the New Deal if not ever.

As to Manchester: I think LBJ was right to be worried about the book, about how it would portray him. Manchester had to curry favor with the Kennedys, especially Jackie, in order to get access; without their contribution he has no book. So he's going to go easy on JFK at the possible expense of LBJ. And we all know about the conflicts between LBJ and RFK and the "Kennedy mafia". It apparently got much worse later but it was bad at the time of the assassination.

Evelyn was packing; Mac Bundy had assigned Maxwell Taylor’s old EOB office to her. She knew the Attorney General wanted the West Wing cleared of President Kennedy’s belongings, but she felt no sense of urgency, and she even asked Cecil Stoughton to photograph the newly decorated rooms while JFK bric-a-brac was still there. Then LBJ unexpectedly appeared and asked her to step into the oval office. “Yes, sir,” she said, and obediently followed.

  President Johnson sat on one of the two facing divans. Evelyn started toward the rocking chair, veered away, and sank on the opposite couch. According to her recollection he said, “I need you more than you need me. But because of overseas”—presumably a reference to the necessity for shoring up confidence abroad—“I also need a transition. I have an appointment at 9:30. Can I have my girls in your office by 9:30?”

  He was giving her less than an hour. She said faintly, “Yes, Mr. President.”

  Muggsy O’Leary, who was standing by Evelyn’s desk, admiring the new red carpeting, overheard the conversation. Of Johnson he felt there was “anxiety on his part to get in.”1

  Johnson then said to Evelyn, “Do you think I could get Bill Moyers in Ken O’Donnell’s office?”

  She didn’t know how to reply. She lacked any influence with Kennedy’s chief of staff. After an awkward pause she faltered, “I don’t know, Mr. President.”

  Withdrawing in confusion, she encountered the Attorney General in her own office. She sobbed, “Do you know he asked me to be out by 9:30?”

  The younger Kennedy was appalled. He had just come in from the South Lawn to see how the moving was progressing, but he hadn’t counted on this. He said, “Oh, no!”

.
.
.

As one Chief Executive’s furnishings departed, another’s arrived. Behind Evelyn’s desk a huge gold-framed portrait of Lyndon Johnson, brought over from his Vice Presidential office, was swiftly hung.3


Yes, I agree that Manchester was partial to JFK and his family. However, LBJ had one of the biggest egos around. We went from JFK’s policy of, essentially,“the war is for the South Vietnamese to fight” to LBJ’s policy of, essentially, “I am not going to be the first US President to lose a war”. LBJ was a very unpopular president, especially with the generation who was of age to be drafted into military service.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Here are LBJ's approval ratings (Gallup). He's up around 55-60% approval through 1965 and then mostly fades until the very end.